Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Vishal Popat Sangle, was detained under Section 3(2) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Dangerous Persons, Video Pirates, Sand Smugglers and Persons engaged in Black Marketing of Essential Commodities Act, 1981 (MPDA Act) by an order dated 26th September 2019 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Nashik. The detenu challenged the detention order on multiple grounds, primarily that he was already in judicial custody in connection with C.R. No.358 of 2019 under various IPC sections, Arms Act, and Maharashtra Police Act, and his two bail applications had been rejected. A third bail application was pending hearing on 30th September 2019, but the detention order was passed hastily on 26th September 2019 without waiting for its outcome and without cogent material to conclude that there was an imminent possibility of bail being granted. Additionally, the detenu contended that documents at pages 33 to 37 of the compilation supplied to him were illegible, impairing his right to make an effective representation. The court, after hearing both sides, found merit in these contentions. It held that the detaining authority's subjective satisfaction regarding the imminent possibility of bail was not based on relevant and cogent material, as the detenu was in custody and bail had been repeatedly denied. The court also noted that the illegible documents violated the detenu's constitutional right under Article 22(5) to make an effective representation. Consequently, the court quashed and set aside the detention order and directed the detenu's release unless required in any other case.
Headnote
A) Preventive Detention - Subjective Satisfaction - Imminent Possibility of Bail - Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Dangerous Persons, Video Pirates, Sand Smugglers and Persons engaged in Black Marketing of Essential Commodities Act, 1981, Section 3(2) - Detenu was in judicial custody and his bail applications had been rejected; third bail application was pending. Detaining authority passed detention order without waiting for its outcome and without cogent material to conclude imminent possibility of bail. Held that the subjective satisfaction was not based on relevant material, rendering the detention order invalid (Paras 3-5).
B) Preventive Detention - Right to Make Effective Representation - Illegible Documents - Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Dangerous Persons, Video Pirates, Sand Smugglers and Persons engaged in Black Marketing of Essential Commodities Act, 1981, Section 3(2) - Documents at pages 33 to 37 of the compilation supplied to the detenu were wholly or partly illegible and could not be read with normal vision. Held that this vitiates the detenu's right to make an effective representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution, and the detention order is liable to be quashed (Paras 3, 6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the detention order under the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1981 is sustainable when the detenu was already in custody and the detaining authority did not have cogent material to conclude imminent possibility of bail, and when some documents supplied were illegible.
Final Decision
The court allowed the petition, quashed and set aside the detention order dated 26th September 2019, and directed the detenu to be released forthwith unless required in any other case.
Law Points
- Preventive detention
- imminent possibility of bail
- illegible documents
- subjective satisfaction
- right to make effective representation
Case Details
2020 LawText (BOM) (01) 81
Criminal Writ Petition No.5979 of 2019
S.S. Shinde, N.B. Suryawanshi
Mr. Udaynath Tripathi i/by Ms. Jayshree Tripathi for the petitioner (detenu); Ms. M.H. Mhatre, APP for the respondents-State
The Commissioner of Police, Nashik; The State of Maharashtra; The Superintendent, Nashik Road Central Prison, Nashik; The Secretary, Hon’ble Advisory Board Constituted under Section 9 of M.P.D.A. Act, 1981
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal writ petition challenging a preventive detention order under the MPDA Act.
Remedy Sought
Quashing of the detention order dated 26th September 2019 and release of the detenu.
Filing Reason
The detenu was in judicial custody, his bail applications had been rejected, and a third bail application was pending; the detention order was passed hastily without cogent material showing imminent possibility of bail, and some documents supplied were illegible, violating his right to make an effective representation.
Previous Decisions
Two bail applications of the detenu were rejected on 29th July 2019 and 28th August 2019. A third bail application (Bail Application No.1647 of 2019) was pending hearing on 30th September 2019.
Issues
Whether the detention order is sustainable when the detenu was already in custody and the detaining authority did not have cogent material to conclude imminent possibility of bail.
Whether the supply of illegible documents to the detenu vitiates the detention order.
Submissions/Arguments
The detenu argued that the detention order was passed in haste without waiting for the outcome of the pending bail application and without cogent material to show imminent possibility of bail.
The detenu argued that documents at pages 33 to 37 of the compilation were illegible, impairing his right to make an effective representation.
Ratio Decidendi
A preventive detention order under the MPDA Act cannot be sustained if the detaining authority's subjective satisfaction regarding the imminent possibility of bail is not based on relevant and cogent material, especially when the detenu is in custody and bail has been repeatedly denied. Additionally, supply of illegible documents to the detenu violates the constitutional right to make an effective representation under Article 22(5), rendering the detention order invalid.
Judgment Excerpts
By this Petition, the petitioner (detenu) impugns the detention order passed by the Commissioner of Police, Nashik City dated 26th September, 2019, under section 3(2) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Dangerous Persons, Video Pirates, Sand Smugglers and Persons engaged in Black Marketing of Essential Commodities Act, 1981.
The learned counsel for the petitioner (detenu) challenges the detention order by invoking grounds (b) and (d) raised in the Petition.
Ground (b) is to the effect that the petitioner (detenu) was in jail in connection with C.R. No.358 of 2019... and his two bail applications were already rejected... Without waiting for the result of the said Bail Application, in hasty manner detention order was passed on 26th September, 2019, without there being relevant and cogent material before the detaining authority to come to the conclusion that there was imminent possibility of grant of bail to the petitioner (detenu).
In ground (d), the petitioner (detenu) claims that the documents supplied to the petitioner (detenu) at pages 33 to 37 of the compilation were wholly and/or partly illegible and could not be read with normal vision.
Procedural History
The detenu was arrested in C.R. No.358 of 2019. His first two bail applications were rejected on 29th July 2019 and 28th August 2019. A third bail application was filed and was pending hearing on 30th September 2019. On 26th September 2019, the Commissioner of Police, Nashik passed a detention order under Section 3(2) of the MPDA Act. The detenu filed Criminal Writ Petition No.5979 of 2019 before the Bombay High Court challenging the detention order. The petition was heard on 9th January 2020 and allowed.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Dangerous Persons, Video Pirates, Sand Smugglers and Persons engaged in Black Marketing of Essential Commodities Act, 1981: 3(2), 9
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: 387, 323, 504, 506, 34
- Arms Act, 1959: 4/25
- Maharashtra Police Act, 1951: 142
